Felipe Massa’s legal action over the F1 2008 Drivers’ Championship, explained

Photo by Darren Heath/Getty Images

Felipe Massa is revisiting the 2008 F1 Drivers’ Championship. Here is why

The 2008 Formula 1 Drivers’ Championship remains one of the closest in the sport’s history, and is still hotly debated to this day. Like the infamous 2021 Drivers’ Championship, which was decided on the final lapo f the season between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen, the 2008 campaign also came down to the final corner of the calendar. Felipe Massa came across the line to win his home race, the Brazilian Grand Prix, in the season’s final race. Massa believed the victory was enough to secure the title.

However, in stark contrast to 2021, Hamilton executed a pass on the final turn of the season, getting by Timo Glock of Toyota to finish fifth. That was enough to see Hamilton win the Drivers’ Championship by a single point.

That would be Hamilton’s first Drivers’ Championship, in just his second year in the sport.

Yet, since 2009 Massa has maintained he was the true Drivers’ Champion for that season, given the discussion that unfolded at the Belgian Grand Prix a year later. Due to an F1 controversy that came to be known as “Crashgate,” Massa grew to believe he was the rightful champion.

Now according to a report from Reuters, he is bringing that belief to court. Why? Let’s walk through it all.

Crashgate and the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix

Given that Hamilton topped Massa by a single point — 98 to 97 — you might believe that Massa’s complaint stems from the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which took place in early November and was the last race on the schedule that season. Entering the final race of the season, Hamilton was in first place with 94 points, with Massa in second place, just seven points behind.

Yet Massa still had a path to the title. A win at home, coupled with a sixth-place finish from Hamilton (or worse), and he would be Drivers’ Champion.

But with Hamilton’s last-corner pass of Glock, it was enough to come across the line fifth, giving him the title by a single point.

However, Massa’s allegations stem not from the Brazilian Grand Prix, but rather the Singapore Grand Prix, which took place that September and was the 15th of the 18 races that year. It was not only the first F1 race in Singapore, but it was also the first race in the history of the sport to take place at night.

Entering the inaugural Singapore Grand Prix, Hamilton had just a one-point lead over Massa in the Drivers’ standings. With Massa qualifying on pole, and Hamilton set to start behind him in second, Massa had a great opportunity to retake the lead in the standings. Massa had not been atop the table since the French Grand Prix, the eighth race of the season.

However, Massa ended up finishing 13th, and outside of the points, due to a disastrous pitstop early in the race. He had built a lead of over three seconds on Hamilton, but on Lap 14 Nelson Piquet Jr. of Renault lost control at Turn 17, and ran into the wall.

Piquet initially blamed his hard tyres for the mistake, citing driver error.

A safety car came out, and nearly the entire grid came down pit lane, including Massa. However, the team released him too early, and the Ferrari driver roared out of the pits with the fueling line still attached:

Massa stopped just before entering the track, waiting for mechanics to race down pit lane to remove the hose. He rejoined the grid at the back of the field, and a few laps later would be given a drive-through penalty for an unsafe release.

He ended up finishing 13th, and outside the points. Piquet’s teammate Fernando Alonso won the Grand Prix.

In the wake of the incident, many pointed to Ferrari’s electronic signaling system, used to indicate when a driver should exit, as the cause of Massa’s pit-lane blunder. Ferrari Team Principal Stefano Domenicali — now the CEO of F1 — instead maintained that it was human error.

The incident drew some speculation, with Massa reportedly reaching out to Renault’s Managing Director Flavio Briatore about what transpired. There were also murmurs about a potential reason behind Piquet’s crash, with F1 journalist Joe Saward writing this at the time:

There were some cynics (there always are) who reckoned that the team’s strategy was to have Nelson crash soon after Fernando had completed his stop and thus create a situation in which Fernando gained an advantage over the rest of the field. One can see this argument, but one likes to believe that no team would ever be so desperate as to have a driver throw his car at a wall. In all probability Piquet just screwed up – he has done that a lot this year.

Fast forward to the 2009 Hungarian Grand Prix the following season. After failing to score a single point, Piquet was released by Renault following that race, the tenth of the season.

Shortly thereafter, Brazilian television reported about the events in Singapore, and alleged that Renault told Piquet to crash on purpose. The reason? Alonso had been the first driver to make a pit stop, and a such he was at a disadvantage in the race. By Piquet crashing, it drew the safety car, and leveled the playing field.

Remember, Alonso went on to win.

FIA immediately announced an investigation into the allegations, and by early September F1’s governing body formally accused Renault and Piquet of interfering with the outcome of the Singapore Grand Prix. The parties were summoned to a meeting at the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris in late September.

While Renault threatened legal action against Piquet ahead of that hearing, in the days prior of that event the team announced it would not be contesting the charges, and that both Briatore and Pat Symonds, their Director of Engineering, would be leaving the organization.

The hearing still took place, following which FIA suspended Renault from F1 for two years. FIA went on to suspend the sentence, but it was a massive black eye for the team, and the sport as a whole.

Briatore was suspended from FIA-sanctioned events indefinitely, while Symonds was given a suspension of five years. Despite being the driver that directly benefited from the crash, Alonso was cleared of any wrongdoing.

What is Massa alleging?

Simply put, Massa is alleging that Crashgate — combined with F1’s apparent knowledge of the plan ahead of the 2009 investigation — means that he is the rightful champion of the 2008 season.

According to Reuters Massa, through counsel, has sent a “Letter Before Claim” to Domenicali (who remember is the CEO of F1 now) and FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem. In the letter, which Reuters has obtained, Massa alleges he was “the victim of a conspiracy committed by individuals at the highest level of F1 together with the FIA and Formula One Management”.

The LBC further asserts that “[s]imply put, Mr. Massa is the rightful 2008 Driver’s Champion, and F1 and FIA deliberately ignored the misconduct that cheated him out of that title.”

“Mr. Massa is unable to fully quantify his losses at this stage but estimates that they are likely to exceed tens of millions of Euros,” the LBC maintains. “This amount does not cover the serious moral and reputational losses suffered by Mr. Massa.”

Reuters further reports that an FIA spokesperson confirmed receipt of the LBC.

While the investigation into the incident — coupled with the admissions from Renault and Piquet back in 2009 — outline that the crash was done on purpose, it was Alonso who was the clear beneficiary. However, Massa further alleges that some of F1’s highest decision-makers knew about the plan at the time, and chose not to take action.

Specifically, Massa points to comments from then-F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone made in March of this year. Speaking with F1-Insider, Ecclestone opened up about what he knew in 2008 — and when — as head of F1.

Speaking this year, Ecclestone is alleged to have said that he and then-FIA president Max Mosley were aware of the situation “during the 2008 season.”

Ecclestone went on to say this:

We decided not to do anything for now. We wanted to protect the sport and save it from a huge scandal. That’s why I used angelic tongues to persuade my former driver Nelson Piquet to remain calm.

At that time, there was a rule that a world championship qualification after the FIA ​​awards ceremony at the end of the year was untouchable. Then Hamilton was presented with the trophy and everything was fine.

We had enough information in time to investigate the matter. According to the statutes, we should have canceled the race in Singapore under these conditions.

That means I would never have changed the championship standings. And then Felipe Massa would have become world champion and not Lewis Hamilton.

Mission … accomplished?

Those comments sparked near-immediate outrage from Massa.

“First of all, it’s very sad, to find out that a race has been stolen… That became clear the following year,” said Massa to Motorsport. “The punishments of (Flavio) Briatore and Pat Symonds happened, while the result of something being stolen, [with that] nothing happened.”

“There is a rule that said that when a championship was decided, from the moment the driver receives the champion’s trophy, things could no longer be changed. But it was proven a theft,” he added. “At the time, Ferrari’s lawyers told me about this rule, we went to other lawyers and the answer was that nothing could be done. I, logically, believed in this situation.”

“And after 15 years, we hear that the [former] owner of the category says that he found out in 2008, together with the president of the FIA, and they did nothing to not tarnish the name of F1,” continued Massa. “This is very sad. You know something was stolen, the result of this race was supposed to be canceled and I would have a title. In the end, I was the one who lost the most with this result.”

Reached for comment on Thursday, Ecclestone had no memory of the interview, according to Reuters.

Can Massa win?

While it is true that I once practiced law — for ten years, believe it or not — answering this question requires a lawyer much smarter than me.

It is true that if you simply declare the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix a nullity, as Ecclestone apparently conceded was an option, then Massa would be the Drivers’ Champion of 2008.

However, another option would have been simply to disqualify Renault from that race, which would have resulted in Hamilton actually winning the Drivers’ title by two points, as he finished second to Alonso in Singapore and under this scenario, would have won the race.

Further, as this study from The Race, outlines, there were other opportunities for Massa and Ferrari to overcome the events of Singapore that season, opportunities they did not capitalize upon.

Perhaps the biggest opportunity? A clean pit stop back in 2008. If Massa does not pull away with the fuel hose attached, he likely picks up a point or two in that race — if not winning it outright — and that would have been enough at the end of the season.

While it might not be a clean comparison, consider the legal doctrine of “last clear chance.” This is a doctrine in tort/negligence law that can be used in a case where two parties are at fault, but the defendant had the “last clear chance” to avoid the ultimate incident. In the seminal case on the doctrine a plaintiff had tied a donkey along the side of a road. The defendant sped by on a wagon at a high rate of speed, striking and killing the donkey. Although both parties had some level of fault — the plaintiff for tying the donkey close to the road, and the defendant for speeding — the defendant had the last chance to swerve and avoid the donkey.

As such, the defendant was ultimately at fault.

One could make the same argument here, with a slight twist. After all, even if F1 knew shortly after the events of Singapore about the reason behind the crash, all Ferrari needed to do was execute a clean pit stop and Massa is likely the 2008 Drivers’ Champion when all is said and done.

Now, whether that will wind up determinative, however, remains to be seen. After all, this incident needs better lawyers than me.